MANGAT RAM ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 568
- Decided
- 22 April 1996
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- K RAMASWAMY
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's compensation of Rs 40 per square yard and held that, under Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act, tenants are entitled to three‑quarters of the compensation while the landlord receives one‑quarter.
Summary
The State of Haryana acquired 49 acres 1 canal 15 marlas of land in Sirsa for a commercial market. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs 25,000 per acre, which was enhanced by the Additional District Judge to Rs 30,000 per acre, then by a single Judge to Rs 27.50 per square yard, and finally by the Division Bench of the High Court to Rs 40 per square yard. Appeals were filed by the Municipal Committee, the Punjab Wakf Board and the tenants challenging the compensation amount and its apportionment. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench's determination of Rs 40 per square yard was correct, noting that similar cases had arrived at the same rate and it should not be interfered with. Relying on Col. Sir Hminder Singh Barar Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal & Ors. and Inder Parshad v. Union of India, the Court modified the apportionment, granting three‑quarters of the compensation to the tenants and one‑quarter to the landlord (Wakf Board). The appeals were dismissed and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation determined by the High Court at Rs 40 per square yard is legally correct under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- How the compensation should be apportioned between tenants and the landlord under Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23(1-A), s. 30, s. 4(1)
Subjects
Judgment
A MANGAT RAM ETC.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
APRIL 22, 1996
B fK. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Sections 23(1-A), JO-Compensation-Award of-Enhancement by
C Additional Disllict Judge and by the High Cowt-Held, compensation deter-
nzined allowed to becon1e final in sin1ilar cases and hence no inte1ference
called for.
Appoltiomnent of compensation-Held, tenants entitled to 3/4 and
landlord entitled to 1/4.
D
Col. Sir Hminder Sing/1 Brar Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal & Ors. Etc.,
[1994] 4 SCC 523 and Inder Pa1,-had v. Union of India & Ors., (1994] 5
sec 239, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8879-80
E of 1996 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.93 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in LP.A. Nos. 1337 and 1318 of 1988.
H.N. Salve, Rajiv K. Garg and N.D. Garg for the Appellants.
F
Jrshad Ahmad for the Respondents.
I.S. Goyal, Ms. Indu Malhotra and Shailendra Bhardwaj for the State.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for all the parties.
The notification under Section 4(1) was published on August 16,
H for acquiring 49 acres 1 canal 15 marlas of land for establishing a
634
MANGATRAMv. STATE 635
commercial market of Auto Vehicles and for commercial purposes in A
Sirsa. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at the
rate of Rs. 25,000 per acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge
enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30,000 per acre. When the matter was
carried in appeal, the learned single Judge enhanced the compensation
to Rs. 27.50 per sq. yd. In L.P.A., the compensation was enhanced to Rs. B
40 per sq. yd.
The Municipal Committee filed ".ppeals arising out of SLP Nos.
23334-35/94 and 20331,32/94. The appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 9046/94,
8448/94 and 7231/94 are filed by the Punjab Wakf Board. The appeals
arising out of SLP Nos. 535-536/94 are filed by the tenants for the appor- c
tionment in a reference under Section 30.
The question is : whether the determination of the compensation
by the High Court is correct in law? It is not in dispute that the Municipal
Committee had not filed any appeal against the enhancement of compen- D
sation by the learned single Judge to the Division Bench. Dissatisfied with
the enhancement of the compensation, the claimants filed L.P.A. and the
Division Bench enhanced the compensation to Rs. 40 per sq. yd. It would
appear that in similar cases, the land situated in similar situation, the
High Court had granted compensation at the same rates and the Division E
Bench reduced the developmental charged from 40% to 33-1/3%.
In view of the fact that in other cases the compensation was deter-
mined at the rate of Rs. 40 per sd. yd. which was allowed to become final,
we decline to interfere with the determination of the compensation by the
Division Bench of the High Court. F
As regards apportionment of the compensation, the High Court has
directed lo pay 1/4 to the tenant anJ 3/4 to the Wakf Board. In view of
the Judgment Col. Sir Hminder Singh Barar Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal
& Ors. Etc., [1994] 4 SCC 523 and lnder Parshad v. Union of India & G
Ors., [1994] 5 SCC 239, the tenants are entitled to 3/4 of the compensation
while the landlord is entitled to 1/4 of the compensation. In view· of the
above law, the order of the High Court in appeals arising from reference
under Section 30 is modified to the extent that appellants/tenants -
Mangat Ram and Ors. are entitled to 3/4th while the Wakf Board is H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A entitled to 1/4th of the compensation amount. The amount awarded in
the judgment of the single Judge under Section 23(1-A) also requires to
be apportioned accordingly.
The appeals are disposed of. The appeals of R.C. are dismissed. No
Costs.
B
G.N. Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.